Data_Mining

The problem is nearly every argument about block chain goes back to a distributed ledger, but that ledger is made completely irrelevant if nobody cares about it. Like let's take a blunt example, What is to stop me from taking every LMG video, run it through an AI voice filter, and a bit crusher and re-uploading it as 8-bit Nerd Videos. It's clearly transformed enough to defeat the AI algorithms on youtube, but anyone who has seen a LMG video would eventually catch on when they start seeing the same audio presented in the same way, regardless of how it's translated.
 
Every time I experiment with AI, I always come to this defeatist position of that nobody would use this for good, no matter what best intentions were made with it. AI singing is simply pushing the original singer's voice through a fancy autotune. It still requires the original song and singer to exist, and calling it a cover is about as creative as calling a greyscale photocopy of color photo an original work. It's still 100% the original work, only now it's been "night-core"'d perfectly.
 
 
 
Nah, it's just that I've seen down the well of the AI-produced content, and basically any platform that allows AI content to be used without labeling it as such, starts getting drowned by low quality material that it actively impairs the platform.
 
Good news: We are getting a lot more content!
Bad news: It's content we already have, but pitched up 1 semitone.
 
 
 

HP's products constitute abuse of the customer in and of themselves. 

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244

Australia has very strong consumer laws.  Fixed or not, he ACCC really don't take lightly to  any company misrepresenting consumer law.  There is no excuse as the Iphone ships with a note explaining that it comes with consumer guarantees that cannot be excluded under Australian law. 
 
Where apple broke the law:
1. released an update that caused a product to cease working. Knowing it would do so and knowing it was against Australian consumer law to do so.
2. told consumers there products weren't covered under any warranties knowing that was against Australian consumer law.
3. got caught being cunts.  Not officially against Australian consumer law but pretty bloody close.

couldn't we just call Trump's space force and let them handle this? just an idea.

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244

After a recent ACCC investigation into customer complaints stemming from "error 53" messages they received after an iOS update, Apple had a $9 million fine handed down a Federal Court. This after Apple admitted to misleading at least 275 customers as to their eligibility for repair. According to the ACCC
 
The court found that the company did not have the right to deny service even if the customer had the device previously repaired by a third party. Further, the ACCC Commissioner clearly pointed out that if the device is faulty and the customer would like a new device or a full refund, they are entitled to demand such from Apple rather than a refurbished device.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-19/apple-fined-$9-million-for-misleading-customers/9885244